Slow action double

[VixTD]

If you're an EBU TD on this forum and someone tried to contact you by phone yesterday to ask for help with a ruling, the chances are it was me, and this was the problem. (By the time I got through to someone in person, the appellants had withdrawn their request.)

 

[hv=d=e&v=e&n=sa10763h10932dj6c97&w=sqj9h7daq9872ck32&e=sk852had104ca108654&s=s4hkqj8654dk53cqj]399|300|Scoring: IMP

1♣..4♥..X(H,1)..P

4♠...P....5♣....5♥

..P...P....X....P

..P...P[/hv]

(1) "value-showing" double, 10+ points, no guarantee of any particular shape, agreed hesitation

 

Result: 5♥X(S)-3

 

This was played in an inter-county teams-of-eight match, between the first county teams. NS called the director at the end of play to question East's 4♠ bid after the slow double. Asked why he had bid 4♠, East said he thought it likely that 4♥ was making, or if not, then not failing by enough to compensate them for their likely game.

 

What do you think?

[paulg]

My initial reaction is the 4♠ is the normal call and that pass is more indicated after a hesitation than 4♠ is.

 

So table result stands.

[bluejak]

Or, to put it another way, is pass an LA? I doubt it. And if it is, does the slow double suggest passing over bidding? I think not.

 

I really cannot see the problem, to be honest, except that perhaps the people asking for a ruling are asking for one on the basis of "If it hesitates, shoot it."

 

And I certainly was phoned yesterday when driving home: I said I would be available in half an hour at home but no-one contacted me. On the other hand I received an email request for a ruling, so it might have been that one rather than you. I am, of course, happy to get requests for rulings, appeals or general assistance by phone from anywhere.

[VixTD]

And I certainly was phoned yesterday when driving home: I said I would be available in half an hour at home but no-one contacted me.

I sent an e-mail to an address I found on your "bridgepage" or "lawspage", thanking you and saying you were no longer needed. (I think it was this one: webjak666@googlemail.com.)

[Pig Trader]

I agree with Cardsharp and Bluejak. If only they were all this easy!

 

Barrie :(

[bluejak]

While my web eddress shown in my sig will reach me in time, there is no guarantee how long that will be. It is meant to be forwarded, but sometimes this does not happen, and every few weeks I find some old unanswered emails.

 

It does help if people who wish to contact me sometime put my eddress in their eddress book. I do not write it on websites en claire because of a lot of spam problems, but I am sure you can work it out from this:

 

l a w s 1

(at)

b l a k j a k

(dot)

o r g

[VixTD]

I'm surprised you all think it is so easy, but then I have no experience of playing these so-called "action", "card-showing", "value-showing" doubles, and I couldn't find anyone among the players who was willing to volunteer an opinion.

 

I thought that pass was a clear option, and I don't see why it is obvious to want to play in 4♠ in a likely seven-card fit opposite a weak or mini-no trump sort of hand (isn't that roughly what it shows?). After all, you do have some defence, and can expect some from partner.

 

I didn't think that the hesitation suggested bidding over passing, but then had a nagging doubt that perhaps a slow "action" double might suggest a more distributional hand, and therefore make bidding more attractive than defending.

 

So while I agree that the result should stand, I don't quite follow the reasoning.

[awm]

A lot of people play these types of doubles over a 4♠ bid; they are less common over 4♥ where most seem to play negative doubles.

 

Usually the guideline in responding to these things is to pass with a balanced hand and bid with a shapely hand. It's not completely obvious what the slow double shows -- in principle it could be a pure penalty double (concerned that partner will pull on an unsuitable hand) or a rather shapely hand with heart shortage (concerned that partner will leave it in with an unsuitable hand).

 

In any case, I think pulling with the east cards (4-6 shape) is a very normal action and the table result should stand.

[aguahombre]

and, "agreed hesitation"? OP did not indicate a length of time. Responder gets some slack here, and the hesitation had better be significant or the issue should not even be addressed, IMHO. Then, the result still stands.

[bluejak]

It is over a Stop bid, so he gets 10 seconds for free while the Stop card is out. If the Stop card is withdrawn prematurely then doubt as to the length of the pause goes to the player pausing because of the failure to follow the regulations. So it is going to be at least a 15 second think to be treated as a hesitation. I do not see any need for any slack above this: lots of people I know pass over a pre-empt like this in a very short time.

 

The problem with pass as a clear option is that a double that does not show trumps together with a hand that is distributional might easily add up to no more than two defensive tricks. It is surprising, nay incredible, that no-one would give an opinion. When I ask a few players a question like "You hold:"[showing them the hand] "and open 1♣, LHO bids 4♥, partner doubles just showing cards, RHO passes, what do you bid?" I cannot remember the last time anyone did not answer. Are you asking them in a strange way, perhaps? What exactly did you say?

 

As to what a slow double suggests, perhaps he has too much in trumps and is afraid his partner will pull when he should pass, thus getting a negative when a pass will garner a positive? While I am not saying that is the case, that is why I do not think pulling is suggested over passing: I can imagine hands for partner's hesitation which suggest pass over pull.

[cherdanno]

I'm surprised you all think it is so easy, but then I have no experience of playing these so-called "action", "card-showing", "value-showing" doubles, and I couldn't find anyone among the players who was willing to volunteer an opinion.

 

I thought that pass was a clear option, and I don't see why it is obvious to want to play in 4♠ in a likely seven-card fit opposite a weak or mini-no trump sort of hand (isn't that roughly what it shows?). After all, you do have some defence, and can expect some from partner.

"Action double" = please bid with shape, pass when balanced.

4126 = shape => bid

It's really that easy IMO. The ace of hearts is a factor in favor of passing, but it cannot overrule 64 shape.

[bluejak]

While my web eddress shown in my sig will reach me in time, there is no guarantee how long that will be.  It is meant to be forwarded, but sometimes this does not happen, and every few weeks I find some old unanswered emails.

 

It does help if people who wish to contact me sometime put my eddress in their eddress book.  I do not write it on websites en claire because of a lot of spam problems, but I am sure you can work it out from this:

 

l a w s 1

(at)

b l a k j a k

(dot)

o r g

This got me thinking and checking on my special web-only eddress. I have found some unanswered emails from January! :( I really do suggest noting a proper eddress and using it rather than the web eddress which sometimes forwards - but clearly not all the time!!!!!

 

If you want to write to me on bridge matters but not Laws matters try:

 

m c b a

(at)

b l a k j a k

(dot)

o r g

 

from the UK and

 

b r i d g

(at)

b l a k j a k

(dot)

o r g

 

from elsewhere.

 

Incidentally, every so often someone writes to me at an eddress <anything@blakjak.com>. Because of spam, I dropped the .com eddress over two years ago and any emails to such eddresses will vanish into the ether.

[nigel_k]

I'm surprised you all think it is so easy, but then I have no experience of playing these so-called "action", "card-showing", "value-showing" doubles, and I couldn't find anyone among the players who was willing to volunteer an opinion.

 

I thought that pass was a clear option, and I don't see why it is obvious to want to play in 4♠ in a likely seven-card fit opposite a weak or mini-no trump sort of hand (isn't that roughly what it shows?). After all, you do have some defence, and can expect some from partner.

 

I didn't think that the hesitation suggested bidding over passing, but then had a nagging doubt that perhaps a slow "action" double might suggest a more distributional hand, and therefore make bidding more attractive than defending.

 

So while I agree that the result should stand, I don't quite follow the reasoning.

While pass by East could be best on some layouts, it is not a logical alternative because the percentages are so heavily against it. Bidding could lose if West has 3352 shape but there are so many other possibilities.West may have four spades, or three clubs, or a playable six card diamond suit, or you might survive anyway or they bid one more.

[aguahombre]

It seems to me that an illogical alternative, which some would ponder, and a portion of those would blow the logic --would end up the same percentage that seems to be required for LA :(

[blackshoe]

I do not see any need for any slack above this: lots of people I know pass over a pre-empt like this in a very short time.

Which is also a BIT, although one very rarely brought to a TD's attention.

[VixTD]

"Action double" = please bid with shape, pass when balanced.

4126 = shape => bid

It's really that easy IMO. The ace of hearts is a factor in favor of passing, but it cannot overrule 64 shape.

Put like this, your ruling makes more sense. EW were given plenty of opportunity to explain their methods, but didn't phrase it like this. I wasn't aware if there was more than one way of playing these doubles, or if there was a single "standard" method.

 

It is surprising, nay incredible, that no-one would give an opinion. When I ask a few players a question like "You hold:"[showing them the hand] "and open 1♣, LHO bids 4♥, partner doubles just showing cards, RHO passes, what do you bid?" I cannot remember the last time anyone did not answer. Are you asking them in a strange way, perhaps? What exactly did you say?

 

I asked about three or four players and they all looked uncomfortable and said "I'm not really the person to ask, try him over there." Maybe it was unfamiliarity with action doubles that was the problem; I don't think many people even in the top team play them. The opposing captain and I then agreed it would be easier to phone a director for a ruling, and leave them to do any consultation they think necessary. (I don't quite know what you mean by "asking in a strange way". What other ways are there of asking?)

[lamford]

Whenever I played action doubles, my partner had a choice between -800 and -790 and usually got it right, on one occasion saving an IMP, losing only 1290 net instead of 1300.

 

4S does seem the only bid on the East hand, and if West made a slow action double and Pass for East then turned out to be the winning action, this would merit a PP for an experienced player. However, opponents are not normally quick enough to spot the Pass that uses UI, but quickly reach for the TD card when there is a bid that might.